Yes, obesity is a disease

A woman walks by a sign advertising sugary drinks in New York City on June 11. (Spencer Platt, Getty Images)

Re: “Obesity a disease,” June 19 news brief.

The American Medical Association has officially defined obesity as a disease. While pundits are making light of the classification, the fact remains that 30 percent of Americans are obese. In 2012, projections stated, “Adult obesity rates could exceed 60 percent in 13 states, and all states could have rates above 4 percent 4 percent by 2030.” According to the Centers for Disease Control, 365,000 deaths occur annually in the United States as a result of complications of obesity.

In 2012, medical costs associated with obesity were estimated at $190 billion per year. According to one study, cars are burning nearly a billion gallons of gasoline more annually than if passengers weighed what they did in 1960.

If we can get together as a country, we have a chance to check this epidemic, save hundreds of thousands of lives, and save billions of dollars.

Matthew A. Metz, M.D., Parker

This letter was published in the June 22 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

1) I have to wonder whether the definition of “obese” has changed over the years. I know the definition of “high serum cholesterol level” has changed, the better to encourage people to use drugs to lower cholesterol levels.
2) The average car, I think, weighs somewhere around 3,000 lbs. If someone is tooling down I-25, or negotiating a mountain road, or commuting along city streets, does anyone seriously believe that hauling a 250-lb driver instead of a 150-lb driver is going to make a serious difference in the gas mileage? I bet not being a lead-foot on the gas pedal, avoiding unnecessary accelerations and decelerations, and other driving habits make a far bigger difference in gas mileage.
3) Obesity can cause health problems,
But making overblown statements can cause heartburn, which left untreated, can lead to ulcers, damaged esophaguses, chronic bleeding, over-reliance on antacids and acid reducers, and even potentially cause internal hemorrhaging! Therefore making overblown statements can be a potential health crisis of epidemic proportions.

tuba_umphblat

What is obese? We can’t use the BMI since, according to it, athletes (not all) are obese. For me to be considered a healthy weight by the BMI, I would have to be emaciated. My ideal weight, as determined by the pinch test, which is more accurate for me, is ~230 lb. I am above that, but I do exercise regularly, actually rode 42 miles this week. I will never be skinny nor will I ever be normal weight by the BMI. I don’t care, because I am stronger and can outwork most people.

Dano2

BMI works just fine for public health. Not for everyone, but most. We can use it no problem;

Best,

D

claudetgarfield

I agree – I would be emaciated at my BMI weight.

Old_Enough

If obesity is a disease, then it has infected 30 to 60% of the population over the last 30 years. It is a new disease. When I was in school, there was one fat kid in every classroom of 30 kids. Now 15 kids are fat in a class of 30. What is the vector that has caused this huge change in only 50 years. Is it a virus, a bacteria, a food additive – what?

It is in everything outside the produce dairy and meat aisles at the grocer.

fanman

Wether or not the corn is genetically modified has nothing to do with high fructose corn syrup made from it. Corn syrup is made from the starch in the corn kernel. Different refining processes determine whether it is “high-fructose” or some other type of corn syrup. The genetic modifications are made to increase resistance to insects and diseases.

holyreality

So,
Instead of GMO corn and HFCS being a unified assault on our health, it is a one two independent punch assault on our health.

Alice Chalmers

Do you subscribe to the “exploding stomach theory” or the “cancer-causing theory” when it comes to GMO’s?

Alice Chalmers

Do you subscribe to the “exploding stomach theory” or the “cancer-causing theory” when it comes to GMO’s?

holyreality

IDK
“Studies” at least non Monsanto funded studies may not show much, but the science is not settled.

The corporate drive to hide GMO in the public food products is all about health, the health of their profit margins.

BTW, I consider the AMA a player in the game. They prescribe drugs that big pharm produces leading to poorer health of the patient who needs more drugs to treat a sicker patient in a viscous cycle that has elderly medicine cabinets resembling a pharmacy.

Just like our schools that dumb us down, the healthcare sector by and large makes us sicker.

Alice Chalmers

So how about the WHO then? Who also has said that they pose no greater risk than non GMO food…

The whole “Monsanto is in bed with everyone” conspiracy theory is getting old fast. Especially when you believe that everyone, including the American Medical Association, is in on it. I urge you to talk to an ag or food safety professor instead of “Dr.” Phil and Oprah.

Dano2

Saaaaay…you’re not a modern-day Andura Smetacek are you??

Best,

D

Alice Chalmers

No, I am someone from the farm community with two degrees in Ag science who knows enough about the science behind certain GMO’s that doesn’t buy into the fear mongering of the organic and pseudo-science sector of our food supply.

Fair question though. And no, I don’t buy Monsanto seeds, but I also don’t discount research. I believe in global warming, vaccines and GMO’s. And GMO’s are not responsible for making people fat any more than escalators are.

I work outside at least 6 hours a day and if my pants get tight I decide to cut out things like ice cream and pasta. Nothing tastes as good as being fit feels.

Dano2

Well, I have a BS in hort from one of the top ag schools in the world and a master’s specialty in ecology, so I might have something to say about your characterization. :o)

Nevertheless, the reason I brought up Andura Smetacek in the context of studies, corporations, and pooh-poohing corporate influence is because of the story behind Andura Smetacek, Chapela, and (related) Tyrone Hayes. I’m not asserting Bt corn causes obesity, BTW.

Best,

D

Alice Chalmers

Well the comment that I originally commented on was, BTW.
Are you disagreeing with the safety of GMO corn or just bringing up Monsanto’s motives? Of course corporations have monetary motives, wouldn’t you if you were dumping money into research? Or are you one of those people who believes everything good should be free?

Monsanto is a company I choose not to deal with because of their policies, but the same people who say their research is no good would be just as upset if the government was spending money to research a product for a private company. It is a no win.

Thought’s on AMA and WHO stance on GMO’s?

Alice Chalmers

Well the comment that I originally commented on was, BTW.
Are you disagreeing with the safety of GMO corn or just bringing up Monsanto’s motives? Of course corporations have monetary motives, wouldn’t you if you were dumping money into research? Or are you one of those people who believes everything good should be free?

Monsanto is a company I choose not to deal with because of their policies, but the same people who say their research is no good would be just as upset if the government was spending money to research a product for a private company. It is a no win.

Thought’s on AMA and WHO stance on GMO’s?

Alice Chalmers

I have a question sir. Do you have even a single study that says GMO corn is causing obesity versus non-GMO corn? If you agree, as I do, that the AMA is a very reputable source of information of health then you might want to know that they have decided that GMO’s show no increased health risks compared to conventional crops.

Yeah, high fructose corn syrup is not healthy. Just like ALL sugar in excess.

Robtf777

“The American Medical Association” has done the American People a complete disservice by turning “obesity” from a 100% lifestyle choice to a 100% “it’s not my fault I eat way too much and exercise way too little” “disease” “that I can not do anything about” problem.

Simply stated “eating way too much and exercising way to little” is very much akin to TOBACCO and ALCOHOL and METH…….in that the “likely consequences” – plain and simple – ARE one’s fault.

We may be able to find “cures” and “treatments” for the Medical Problems that Tobacco, Alcohol, Meth, and Obesity CAUSES……but we will probably never find a “cure” or “treatment” that will allow the entire US Population to smoke, drink to excess, use meth, or “eat too much and exercise too little” to the point of becoming Grossly Fat and avoid such problems as lung cancer, heart disease, becoming diabetic, or any other health issues that are CAUSED by the Lifestyle Choice people make.

I understand that genetics is claimed to play a part in the “obesity problem”…….but “genetics” does NOT FORCE anyone to eat way too much fatty foods and then to sit around and exercise far too little. Those things are choices PEOPLE make every time they open their mouths and shovel in that double-bacon-double-cheeseburger, extra large bag of fries, and 44 oz cup of sugary soda…….while they sit on a couch watching TV.

A LOT of kids simply don’t play outside anymore. They don’t go to the park or the playground and run around and play softball or walk or bike ride to the community pool and swim.

The most exercise a LOT of kids and adults get these days is using their thumbs to either text or operate a video game…….while they consume 500 to 1,000 calories an hour eating junk food.

And “we” wonder why the “obesity” problem only gets worse?

Implying that it is a “not my fault disease”…..doesn’t help anyone…..and may only encourage the problem to continue to grow……as “it’s not my fault” absolves anyone of any responsibility to change their lifestyle.

primafacie

Obesity is no more a disease than is cheating at golf or than carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Even worse is saying obesity is an “epidemic,” despite the fact it’s not contagious.

This silliness may be born of the idea some have tried to sell that being overweight isn’t your fault — it’s the sedentary culture, food additives and preservatives, society’s fixation on skinny actresses, or genetically slow metabolism — so be happy with who are.

Please.

Dano2

Obesity is no more a disease than is cheating at golf or than carbon
dioxide is a pollutant. Even worse is saying obesity is an “epidemic,”
despite the fact it’s not contagious.

My, my. Utterly wrong much?

Best,

D

ZZ_man

He’s not wrong here….

Dano2

Unless this is satire, then I protest the lack of an emoticon:

o Of course you can cheat at golf

o Of course carbon dioxide is a pollutant

o Epidemics and disease are not defined by contagion.

Basic.

Best,

D

guest

Carbon dioxide is a trace element in the atmosphere and something that if we get below 150 ppm would mean the end of life on earth. Far from being a pollutant, CO2 is a fundamental building block of life.

In the meantime, Obesity is a condition, not a disease.

peterpi

If someone is in a sealed space, and their own CO@ is piling up, then yes, CO2 can be a pollutant.

guest

CO2 levels at 40,000 ppm and above can be lethal.

Justclimbit

I don’t think that most (including myself) think of CO2 as a pollutant. But because of the broad definition of “pollutant” in the Clean Air Act, the EPA was sued to list it as one and control it as other pollutants. Legally, it is most definitely a pollutant.

Dano2

I don’t know what that typing episode meant, but CO2 is a pollutant. And thanks for reminding us of that old tobacco-like campaign, “CO2 is life”, partially paid by Exxon.

Best,

D

guest

CO2 is not a pollutant no matter how many times you say it is.

Dano2

CO2 is not a pollutant no matter how many times you say it is.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Mass v EPA 549 U.S. 497 (2007)

HTH.

Best,

D

ZZ_man

CO2 is not a pollutant, although it may be harmful to oxygen breathing animals in excessive amounts. CO2 is essential to life on this planet.

That ridiculous case shows that even the supreme court plays the politically correct game. Why didn’t the same idiot States petition them to make water vapor a pollutant? By your definition, water vapor (the largest and most powerful greenhouse gas) is also a pollutant.

Regardless, obesity is no more a disease than cheating at golf. Both are easily correctable actions taken by the individual.

Dano2

CO2 is not a pollutant, although it may be harmful to oxygen breathing animals in excessive amounts. CO2 is essential to life on this planet.

Mass v EPA 549 U.S. 497 (2007)

And again, thank you for recycling the CEI/Tobacco propaganda “CO2 is Life!!!” Always good to have a reminder of the depths to which they’ll sink.

Best,

D

Justclimbit

It is not the direct biological effect of CO2 that is the problem, but rather its radiative properties. It alters the energy balance of the Earth.

Continued emissions of CO2 accumulate in the atmosphere. Water vapor does not. The amount is regulated by temperature. Too little, and more water evaporates from the surface. Too much, and it precipitates out.

ZZ_man

So if the planet warms, there will be more water vapor in the air. This will block the sun, causing the planet to cool. We will then have all the extremists crying about global cooling. We already went through this in the ’70s.

guest

We really don’t know. We don’t have the physics worked out yet on what happens with water vapor. Does it form high level clouds which traps heat in, or does it form low level clouds which reflects heat back into space?

I even read about a study that found as CO2 has increased this last decade, the amount of water vapor in the troposphere has decreased.

Justclimbit

Water vapor is a positive feedback. The “physics” regarding water vapor are quite well known. Cloud feedbacks are less certain, but most evidence points to a zero to small positive feedback.

Drawing conclusions in climate or any scientific field requires an examination of all of the relevant research. “Read[ing] about [one] study” means very little.

guest

So you are a science by consensus kind of guy. I think we should put it to a vote: The law of gravity is wrong.

Justclimbit

Oh, stop with the talking points. I said nothing of consensus. Science is based on evidence. If the preponderance of evidence points to a particular conclusion, then that conclusion gains greater reliability. If 9 tire technicians examine your flat tire and find that the leakage of air was due to the 3 centimeter nail sticking out of it, then it is likely that the cause of the flat was the nail. If another technician believes the nail not to be the cause, then that evidence needs to be submitted and weighed against the rest.

guest

Preponderance of the evidence. Could you show me the science book that says that?

Justclimbit

Perhaps that is your problem. You need to pick up a “science book”.

guest

Nope you made the statement about preponderance of the evidence. It up to you to show us where in science someone said what you indicated.

Justclimbit

I’m afraid I’m at a loss. You actually do not believe that science relies on evidence?

Dano2

He’s just saying anything to spread FUD. He believes whatever it takes to spread falsehoods.

Best,

D

Justclimbit

A number of us have supplied him with avenues to find the data showing his assertions to be completely false. But at least others may find that data and realize that his is simply a disinformation campaign.

guest

My assertion is that the physics isn’t worked out yet on the effect of water vapor and clouds. And you are saying that it is? I would say your assertion is less than honest.

Justclimbit

We’ve been over this a number of times. Water vapor feedback is quite certain. Clouds not so much.

Dano2

But let’s not forget some of your other recent [false] assertions:

o Surface and ocean warming have flat-lined.
o OHC is not measured.
o There has been no statistically significant warming in 15 to 23 years

Don’t forget his “CO2 is not a pollutant”.

Best,

D

Justclimbit

Right, thanks.

guest

I stand by my statements because they are true. However you misstated one of them and added another one.

Surface and ocean warming have flat-lined according to ARGO.

OCH is not measured, but but sampled and is then estimated. And since ARGO has been operational, the temperature has flat lined. (Don’t worry the ARGO people are working on corrections in the data).

There has been no statistically significant warming in 15-23 years. Now DTJ just says that is a lie while Climate wants to use Trenberth’s latest hypothesis to claim it isn’t true if you take the entire ocean into account (It’s funny I never heard anything about the OHC while the temperature was going up). But note, Trenberth hasn’t proven a thing and he thinks ARGO is better than the past but he doesn’t like the flat lining we see in ARGO’s readings. Here’s an observation. ARGO data has been “corrected” a number of times. I’ve noticed is always is corrected up to warmer temperatures. Curious? Of course you aren’t.

THERE HAS BEEN NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING IN 15-23 YEARS.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It may be called that for the law, but in science it is a trace gas critical for life.

I do find both DTJ and Climate to be humorous in their desperation to try to keep the AGW ship afloat. Here’s some more information you can try to torture and deny.

Just before Xmas of 2012, the Met Office posted a ‘decadal forecast’, which not only acknowledges the pause, but predicts it will continue at least until 2017. It says world temperatures are likely to stay around 0.43 degrees above the long-term average – as by then they will have done for 20 years.

Dano2

guest (jayreadyjay) is not very good at disinformation. Guest has been demonstrably shown to be dishonest and lying with statistics…

guest (jayreadyjay) is a purposeful disinformer, see [Posted
June 20, 2013, 5:22 pm MT The causes – and costs – of Colorado’s forest fires ] to get the full depths of his low-rent perfidy.

Best,

D

Justclimbit

Argo (it is not an acronym) measures ocean heat content, not surface warming (and not OCH).

Argo floats measure temperature.

Looking at the results of Levitus (2012), which uses Argo data, warming is clearly evident from 0-700m, and very prominent for 0-2,000m. I see no “flat line” in a regression of the data. Perhaps if you give a citation for what you are looking at, we can determine where the discrepancy lies.

All methods of surface, atmospheric, and ocean temperature measurement require analysis and correction.

You still appear to think the Kevin Trenberth is the sole source of my OHC references. I have recommended several papers giving evidence that the bulk of the energy imbalance going to heating the ocean.

CO2 has been determined to be a pollutant as defined by law.

The Met Office has simply acknowledged that with the natural forcings on the climate system have acted (and will for a bit longer) as a compensating cooling for anthropogenic forcing. They are referring to the surface/near surface.

Dano2

I’m going to take two separate points in my Climate Denialist points game:

… more water vapor in the air. … causing the planet to cool.

25) 20 points.

We will then have all the extremists crying about global cooling. We already went through this in the ’70s.

9) 5 points–

———————-

25 points isn’t bad for such a short comment!

[points reference if you want to play your own game, Google:

Quantifying skeptical arguments

How to rank skeptical arguments.

… I’m taking after the Crackpot Index and making it unique to climate change skepticism. … It is a similar point system
and designed to see who ranks where, and how various claims on the web should be taken. Much like crackpots and golfers, the higher the score, …. ]

Best,

D

guest

Wow, what a fabulous response: not a shred of an argument or even a coherent thought. Of course we’ve grown to expect that of Mr. DTJ.

Dano2

There’s no need for an argument.

This has been explained so many times that everyone is sick of it and so made a game out of it. You are either too craven or ignorant to acknowledge it.

Best,

D

guest

This is a good time to not “need” and argument as everything in your arguments seems to be going to seed.

Dano2

You are being dishonest here again, very clearly. It is all you have.

Best,

D

Justclimbit

Water vapor doesn’t “block the sun”. You, yourself said that water vapor is a “greenhouse” gas. “Greenhouse” gases are transparent to incoming short wave and opaque to outgoing long wave. You are correct that water vapor will increase with temperature (about 7% for each 1ºC). But this increase in water vapor will amplify the forced warming, and not cause “the planet to cool”.

BTW, the “global cooling” bit in the ’70s was a magazine article and a very few scientists hypothesizing about continued aerosol pollution (which was curtailed by clean air regulations). The scientific consensus in the ’70s, just as it is now, was for global warming.

guest

Greenhouse gases are opaque to certain wavelengths of outgoing wave radiation. You make is sound like all the heat is trapped. Have you seen any of the work by Vernier and Barnes. They offer another hypothesis on why we haven’t seen any statistically significant warming in the last 15-23 years.

Dano2

guest (jayreadyjay) has been demonstrably shown to be
dishonest and lying with statistics…[They offer another hypothesis on why we haven’t seen any statistically significant warming in the last 15-23 years.] .is one such instance.

Nope, it’s true. There has been no statistically significant warming in the past 15-23 years. And Trenberth’s the ocean the winds ate my warming doesn’t change that fact.

Justclimbit

How does significant ocean warming during your supplied time frame not “change that fact”?

guest

Not significant and not measured–another model output and we know how well the other climate models have worked.

Justclimbit

OHC is measured. Looking at the error bars in the measurements, the trend over your stated duration is in fact significant.

guest

Anything before ARGO is garbage and you know it. And ARGO right now is flat lined just like surface temperatures.

And why don’t you tell the readers how much even Trenberth says the ocean has possibly warmed.

Justclimbit

I wouldn’t say that XBT measurements were “garbage”, but would concur that ARGO has improved the reliability of OHC measurements. Surface temperatures have not “flat lined” and OHC measurements have increased dramatically. Did you ever look at the NOAA OHC data that I recommended to you? And you do understand that Trenberth is not alone in looking at OHC, right?

guest

Do you want to put that in degrees that the ocean has warmed?

Justclimbit

Joules was the unit used in Levitus (2012). It is commonly used to quantify OHC.

guest

Yeah, but you can convert it into degrees if you want to. I wonder why people don’t want to? It’s probably because it is such a small number when you see that in those 55 years, the ocean’s temperature has increased about .03 degrees C.

Here are some other reasons to laugh at the AGW proponents desperate attempt to shore up their belief system.

1. ARGO does make measurements much better, but the number of floats in ARGO divided into the surface area of ocean gives you one per an area roughly the size of Kentucky. Prior to ARGO there is very little data on temperatures at 1500 meters.

2. The ARGO floats keep having to have their output massaged. It appears their reliability isn’t something you’d want to bet the farm on.

Do we have any idea about the variability of the temperatures and ocean heat content of the global oceans to depth? Again, nothing that I would bet the farm on.

Here’s a question for you. If in the 1980s and 1990s the heat was going up on the land, what happened that suddenly stopped that from happening and switch the temperature increase heavily to the oceans?

Justclimbit

Remember that the ocean has a huge heat capacity compared to the atmosphere. What would seem a small difference in degree change in the atmosphere holds more significance in OHC.

I see no reason to “laugh at the AGW proponents” because an improvement in OHC data collection is still limited. At least you now admit that Argo (note the lower case letters) actually measures something.

I have already discussed the need for analysis and correction of data from all sources.

I don’t understand the question in your second to last paragraph.

Periods of predominant El Niños allow for a transfer of heat from ocean to atmosphere. La Niñas result in the opposite. Good examples are the surface warming during the ’97/’98 El Niño, and the reduced surface warming during our recent stretch of La Niñas.

guest

My second to the last paragraph was asking do we really know what the heat content of the oceans actually are? My answer is not really. In fact that is the problem with the AGW proponents. They pretend they know a lot more than they do and then roll out scare stories about what might happen.

BTW I didn’t mean to laugh at AGW proponents because of an improvement in OHC data collection, but rather at the grasping at straws to explain the things that aren’t going according to the models that are built on CO2 being the culprit for everything that is bad in the world (exaggeration on my part, but you get the gist of it).

Dano2

Guest is a purposeful disinformer. How do we know? This mendacity:

My answer is not really.

Your clear lack of knowledge on several subjects makes your credibility on this answer zero.

That is: you are a purposeful disinformer. And the cr@p you parrot makes you look incompetent.

You really s–k at disinformation.

Smarter FUD spreaders and Flat-Earthers please.

Best,

D

Justclimbit

Climate science is more complete than you think. Nothing in science is completely and forever “settled”, but we have made great strides in so many areas. Every new paper brings another addition to the knowledge base. And this certainly includes ocean response to warming.

I’m not aware of any climate scientist who “pretend[s] they know a lot more than they do”. My own experiences have shown climate scientists to be very cautious about making assertions. They’re credibility as scientists is on the line with every conclusion they find. Scientists don’t “grasp at straws”. The very nature of science is to find an explanation for physical phenomena. This is a painstaking, laborious process. No credible scientist that I could ever imagine would posit an untested, unsubstantiated explanation because they were at a loss for something better. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but reputations are fragile when it comes to refutations.

GCMs are not “built on CO2 being the culprit”. All climate components are carefully analyzed and operative in models.

Dano2

Anything before ARGO is garbage and you know it. And ARGO right now is flat lined just like surface temperatures.

Just like a purposeful disinformer would say.

Best,

D

guest

IF the information before ARGO was good, why go to the bother of creating ARGO?

Dano2

It is false. You are purposely lying with statistics. it is dishonest and mendacious to make that assertion. Dishonest dissembling.

guest (jayreadyjay) has been demonstrably shown to be
dishonest and lying with statistics…[They offer another hypothesis on why we haven’t seen any statistically significant warming in the last 15-23 years.] .is one such instance.

“guest (jayreadyjay) is a purposeful disinformer”, We have shown how he is dishonest: see [The causes – and costs – of Colorado’s forest fires (2 letters)].

Best,

D

guest

Desperate.

Dano2

Guest is a purposeful FUD-spreading disinformer.

He is a cr@ppy disinformer and uses the same tactics, and he can’t flap his small hands to hide the fact he is lying with statistics.

But nonetheless he s–ks at the FUD game. Maybe if the PR firms would hire smart people their FUD wouldn’t s-ck.

Best,

D

guest

You are sounding more and more desperate.

Dano2

No, pointing out you s-ck at FUD isn’t desperate, Despite you flapping your tiny hands to try and hide it. You s-ck at disinformation.

And you suck at trying to distract from your cr@ppy tactics. If you are being paid, they are wasting their money on you.

Best,

D

Justclimbit

The post was written in an elementary style for someone who believes that water vapor blocks the sun. A detailed spectrographic analysis of the absorptivity of various “greenhouse” gases was not called for.

As I have indicated before, if you have some “this changes everything” peer reviewed research for us to consider, please include a citation.

guest

So you dumbed it down for all of us? Thanks.

Justclimbit

You are very welcome.

ZZ_man

I thought MD’s were supposed to have an education. Please Matt. Obesity may be a problem, but it is NOT a disease. I suppose you are on board with this because of the big money grab…shame on you!

Hankalish

Holy macaroni!

Waiting for or hoping “If we can get together as a country”, isn’t going to work.

I don’t know if obesity is a disease, addiction or sedentary lifestyle issue…but it certainly is up to the individual (perhaps with a doctor’s help) to address their individual weight problems.

Walk, run, ride, roll and do some push ups (away for the table).

Dano2

It’s also about corporate food, the fact that we subsidize the wrong things, how we signal the wrong things about food, education, not eating together at the table, Madison Ave…

IOW: it is much, much, much more than individual responsibility wrt food choices.

As soon as we move beyond the false balm of individual responsibility on this issue, things will turn around and obesity will lessen.

Best,

D

ThePyro

I gotta agree partially with you here. Food choice IS, in fact, driven by profits, politics and a host of other things that have nothing to do with nutrition. But until people start saying “I am NOT going to eat a 49 cent McFatty’s hamburger” and “What the HECK is in this Casa Grasa Culo burrito, anyway?”, ain’t nuthin’ gonna change.

peterpi

Casa Grasa Culo???

Jonron or Cuadrangular!!!

I knew my reading of package ingredients (bilingual ones come in handy) would pay off some day, LOL

Dano2

But until people start saying “I am NOT going to eat a 49 cent
McFatty’s hamburger!” and “What the HECK is in this Casa Grasa Culo
burrito, anyway?”, ain’t nuthin’ gonna change.

Right, I’m on board with you. It’s just that these food choices are manipulated by advertising, chemical additives, fats, color, socioeconomic conditions, etc. Very little of modern American food choice by the average citizen is controlled by rational decision-making.

Best,

D

irisman

Obesity is a disease, but a slow acting one. It’s like the story of the frog in a pot cool wa water. If you turn on the stove the frog won’t jump out while the water slowly heats up. That being said, the standards for body mas index appear to be too stringent. I say if a person’s waist measurement is greater than his height, he needs to start losing weight now. Gov. Christie took action.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.